501–510 of 1001 posts
I mean either you share links to long-form content, or source an opinion, or you are contributing nothing to a discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed that lots of C-suite and owner/CEO startup people have like three to five active business roles on their Linkedins. A fun case of "rules for thee, but not for me" when it comes to anti-moonlighting clauses and such. I can't "give it my all" if I take some weekend gigs, but you can hold two C-suite positions, be on two boards, plus have an "advisory" role with some startup? It's a lot like drug testing fo…
Careful, you're dangerously close to realizing that Executives at companies provide vanishingly little day to day value to companies. I'd bet in most companies the CEO is basically just a buffer between the board and the rest of the company, and essentially a fall guy position so the board can avoid accountability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem is that "person" is a broader category than I want to unfollow. There are precious few people whose posts I want to see all of. Most people I have ever followed exist somewhere on a continuum of what proportion of their tweets I want to see. It would be nice to have more positions on the knob than 100% and 0%. What I'd really like would be to say "don't show me tweets like this from this person". Yes it's…
> seems like you could throw some work toward figuring this out. They already have a start - they push following categories. So presumably they are categorizing individual tweets into these categories. It should be feasible to both provide finer-grain categories, and tooling to include/exclude how those intersect with those accounts one is following.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rules for thee but not for me” is interesting when placed in juxtaposition with a famous quote from the software architect and composer Frank Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. That applies to no-moonlighting clauses, but also to no sexual harassment clauses,…
I have an open mind about it and have seen it many times, but I struggle with the leaps of logic required to understand the one proposition of conservatism. On its face it is obviously unfair, and it's hard for me to see it as the obvious consequence of conservatism which is "heavily trust the past and move forward with caution". Can you help me connect the two or at least help me understand the underlying propositio…
(FWIW I think he's got the wrong word. He says "For millenia, conservatism had no name..." and then cites divine right of kings.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, you're dangerously close to realizing that Executives at companies provide vanishingly little day to day value to companies. I'd bet in most companies the CEO is basically just a buffer between the board and the rest of the company, and essentially a fall guy position so the board can avoid accountability.
Well to be fair, good management should be practically invisible. It shouldn't be much of a factor in your day to day work. They should be overseeing larger trends, gently nudging things to stay on course, talking with others to coordinate, etc. I have reasonably decent leadership where I work, and the only times I have much contact outside of my direct reporting line is when something has gone (or might go) seriousl…
That's the point. The best managers/CEOs are mostly getting out of the way and telling person A to CC person B about a new idea. Not screwing up a system that works isn't the same as adding value.
Twitter and other social media are probably the biggest problem of our time. By providing simple rules of information flow: small amount of content, retweet, followers) and rewards (likes), they've created the most efficient engines for finding and spreading novelty at the expense of everything else. There are no incentives to improve accuracy, increase thoughtfulness, paint nuance. Fact checking gets lost in the win…
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011647630/ William Randolph Hearst ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst ) did all of this first in the early 1900s. (Along with his rival Pulitzer. But the image above is clearly in Hearst's image, a fact probably lost to the modern audience) The "problems" you state are far older than Twitter, and its best to study history and the problem of "Yellow Journalism".…
The specific problems of today are utterly unlike anything older. The medium is overwhelmingly determinate of impact.
The simplistic version of this is: there are profound non-linearities introduced by lack of friction. "Superficial" differences in the role of feedback and tailored results which are noise in the case of print and broadcast media, are everything in contemporary social media.
Most particularly, the so-called "algorithm" problem is specific to contemporary social media; and it is imbedded in our society in ways that are unlike anything which has challenged it previously: as the citizen-facing sharp edge of surveillance capital, in which the origin and flow of "value" (i.e. consumer data) is all but entirely removed from public view and individual agency; and acts as a meta-filter, which is the sharp edge of social media serving increasingly as the sole mechanism whereby people receive media.
We live in a world in which what we read is ever more carefully targeted, deluded in the belief that we have agency in what we see and some defense about what it does not just to us, but to society as a whole.
Contemporary social media is stochastic mind control. And as said, it is currently performed almost entirely in service of ends very much at odds with the common good, in almost any dimension you choose to inspect.
Oh well. We had an OK run.
> you're not going to be able to give the focus a solo CEO is How the fuck does Elon do it then? The mf has like four concurrent organizations under his helm. > I think the bigger issue is who gets to replace him: will it be someone with smart ideas or someone to serve as a puppet of activist investors? The rising stock price implies yes. Elliot MG has been desperate to make twitter the next mega app. Expect payment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feelings wheel, my friend. Jealous and Furious are similar, jealous is when you want someone else to not have something, and furious is when they come for your stuff. Infuriated and annoyed are linked, and infuriated is when you get so annoyed you start yelling back. I'm trying to make all the emotional categories more distinct in my philosphy, recently posted a video as such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZwxLUrl…
Interesting! I don't really relate to those definitions - furious and jealous don't seem similar to me, nor do infuriated and annoyed seem particularly similar - but thanks for the explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011647630/ William Randolph Hearst ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst ) did all of this first in the early 1900s. (Along with his rival Pulitzer. But the image above is clearly in Hearst's image, a fact probably lost to the modern audience) The "problems" you state are far older than Twitter, and its best to study history and the problem of "Yellow Journalism".…
The class of problem and its origins are constant in the interaction between human nature and an open market. The specific problems of today are utterly unlike anything older. The medium is overwhelmingly determinate of impact. The simplistic version of this is: there are profound non-linearities introduced by lack of friction. "Superficial" differences in the role of feedback and tailored results which are noise in…
The USA literally started a war on false pretenses and took over the Philippines as a result of Yellow Journalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)
This included at least 15 years of harsh occupation, as the Philippine Katipunan (in the north) and Moros (the Muslims of the south) fought a guerilla war against their US occupiers, with roughly 200,000 dead from famines and war. I mean, USA occupied the Philippines until the 1940s (the seeds for Philippine independence were planted by the 20s, but WW2 severely delayed plans). But just because US Citizens have forgotten the story doesn't mean that this stuff didn't happen.
The Yellow Press has been a bane upon US society for over a century. There's letters from Ben Franklin about how he manipulated the press (ie: leaking false "scalping" stories about native Americans / British) to aid in the US Revolution. (See Henry Hamilton, a British Administrator who was widely believed to be a scalper, but proof never was offered on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hamilton_(colonial_admin...)
-------
This is literally who we are as a people. Easily manipulated, outraged filled citizens who individually seem to have difficulty doing any form of critical thinking. Then a few elites get a good idea about how to manipulate the masses: be they Benjamin Franklin, William Hearst, his rival Pulitzer, or today Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
Its been like this for centuries, and it will continue to be like this long after you or I die.
Good for Bret Taylor— he's had quite a career over the years, with being an architect of Google Maps, then founding FriendFeed, being acquired into Facebook and ending up in senior leadership at Salesforce and Twitter.